Posted: Aug 07, 2019 6:18 pm
by romansh
zoon wrote:
As you say, I would probably do better to stick to the core compatibilist argument: we ordinarily make a distinction between actions which were coerced, and actions which were uncoerced, or free. This distinction has consequences both in ordinary social life and in the law; we are much more likely to hold someone personally responsible for an uncoerced, or free, action, and to respond with blame and punishment, or praise and reward.

What we are doing is separating different causes into various buckets. Which is fine. Some of these buckets of causes under certain conditions can be deemed freely willed. And in turn the actions resulting from these buckets of causes under certain conditions can be considered worthy of sanction or reward. Depending on our world views, upbringing etc, we can have a fine old time debating whether actions were freely willed.

All this does though, it allows us to take the eye off that someone could not have done otherwise, given their buckets of cause. And in deference to Cito … for there is a really interesting filozeeffical implication to how the universe, filofeezers and non filofeezers tick.